What is the feasibility of storing the entire forum on some decentralized file system. Ideally it would be bitcoin itself through something like ordinals. But alot of people probably would object to that as a waste of blockspace so what other ways could it be done less expensively.

1) how much disc space does the bitcointalk forum hold in total?
2) how much does it grow per month?
3) how often would you update the forum threads and what software would you use to do it?

We can't expect the forum to stay online forever but there are some nice threads with a ton of information in them and that should be saved somehow for future bitcoiners. I know that some people will have a seriously bad reaction to suggesting the entire forum be stored on bitcoin itself but doesn't it make sense that that's where it belongs? Bitcointalk is the de facto forum for bitcoin everything.

yes i do tend to agree that the term "mining" is a bit misleading to what people are actually doing. they're not really doing anything except wasting electricity so they can get more bitcoin. they're not really miners in a traditional sense like a gold miner. gold miners actually find something in the ground. bitcoin "miners" aren't finding bitcoin.

fine. but when the government passes laws related to bitcoin mining those laws apply to people. the asic owners or pool managers, if you will.


would you consider bitcoin "broken" if the government decided to reclassify people who own bitcoin miners and pool managers as MSBs? apparently you consider LN to be a failure possibly due to this fact. because that's the danger we face if we allow the government to come up with the definitions and then decide what activities fit those definitions. but it seems like you are willing to let them do all of that.


well there are 50 states in the usa. all it would take is one of them to decide to reclassify people who own bitcoin miners or pool managers as MSBs and everyone would be screwed. because we have to follow the law right? there is not a single person that owns bitcoin miners or any pool manager who would go to the trouble of getting licensed in even a single state, thus requiring them to do KYC on ALL THEIR "CUSTOMERS" to make sure that they don't live in that particular state. yeah that's right bitcoin would no longer be semi-anonymous!

miners are people. that's what i think they are.

maybe you are confusing the verb "mining" with the noun "miner"? a machine just doesn't assemble itself and plug itself in for its own benefit. there is a person the manages it and they are the miner.

isn't that kind of splitting hairs though? people are forced pretty much to include an output for the transaction fee which goes directly to the miner who mines their transaction into a block. no, the transaction doesn't identify the bitcoin address of the miner but the way bitcoin is setup, it still goes directly to their wallet anyway. that's pretty much a direct payment in my opinion. it's like writing a blank check and someone picks it up and writes their name as the payee. so you paid them directly even though you didn't know who they were when you wrote the check. it came from you and went to them.


apparently you have to register as a MSB in every single state of the USA that you will be handling peoples' money from. but how many bitcoin LN nodes even know where their "customers" are located? how many of them do KYC? probably none! no one is going to follow rules that are pretty much DOA. register in every single state? how much is that going to cost? how much time is that going to take? too much probably! but apparently people are just ignoring that issue and running nodes anyway.

the only reason why bitcoin has any value at all is because enough people believe or agree to it having that value. everything else is a consequence of that, including the fact that it requires energy to mine bitcoin.

someone would have to have a serious misunderstanding to think that just because something uses lots of energy to create means it is automatically valuable.


i suspect it costs some gold miners way less than market price to mine gold. so i don't necessarily think that mining price is what determines the market price of gold. it's other things.

i bet they would start paying back their loans ASAP then! that's a wonderful idea Dr. Joseph. I have never heard it before. But I like it!

thanks for answering the question Dr. Joseph it makes sense.

to an extent what you say is true. bitcoin only has value because everyone agrees it has value. or enough people agree. unlike something like gold that has intrinsic value because it has physical uses.

i just thought the miners were already performing a service by mining peoples' transactions and putting them in blocks AND getting paid. people pay these miners directly by including a transaction fee. people are paying miners to process their transactions for sending electronic cash to other people. i think uncle sam could make a case that bitcoin miners needed to register as MSBs.

well i wouldn't want bitcoin to require me to KYC just to use it so if that's what the outcome of adding mixing into the protocol then i guess we can't do that.


what is the secondary app? can you just tell me? 

now i do so if that's what would happen then we obviously can't have that. i don't agree with mixing as being regulated but apparently that's how it is. i just didn't think they would care if it was integrated into bitcoin core. maybe i was wrong.

dr. joseph is a pretty brilliant mathematician. at least he got his phD in something that required some hard work. and dedication. not only that but i think he is a lifelong learner. that's what a phD is really all about anyhow.

a phD is smarter than a person with just a masters though. people get masters degrees like they get big macs at macdonalds...

it doesn't make sense to me anyway that you would use videos as a form of proof of work. videos have a value that really can't be measured just in terms of the amount of energy that was required to make them. you would need some way to grade the videos that took into account how useful the videos are to actual people. so people would have go be involved in watching them, rating them, etc.

how so? he presented an entire description of how the verification system would be set up. it could handle some volume it sounded like

not necessarily. if you have a max supply hardcoded in.

i already brought up that issue but the OP had already considered that and replied.

that explains WHAT he did but not why he did it that way.

then satoshi didn't design bitcoin properly since it is permissionless. anyone can use bitcoin, even a convicted felon. bitcoin itself has no system in place to stop anyone from using it, no matter what their purposes and goals are.

listen closely franky so you can understand this important point: the fact that bitcoin ended up being a "PUBLIC ledger thats fully auditable" is mainly because that is the easiest/simplest kind of blockchain to design.

All they are is software developers. Nothing more than that. I'm not handing over an ID to someone like that. Nor should I be required to.

maybe i want to do things that press the issues. it's not like bitcoin is ever going to be a friend to the usa government so we should just get that out of our heads. they are at odds with bitcoin and everything it stands for and that is never going to change. what you're suggesting is "don't ruffle the feathers, maybe they'll leave us alone" when did that philosophy ever work out when it came to the usa government.

well, to me, companies like chainalysis they are invading peoples' privacy. certainly satoshi probably never thought some company like that would ever exist. i'm not sure satoshi thought much about how bitcoin lacks fungibility though. to be really useful something needs to be 100% fungible. fiat cash is close but since it has serial numbers, it can be traced so i wouldn't say it's 100%. but it's probably the gold standard.


repeat after me, franky. "the government is the enemy." trying to get along with an enemy isn't necessarily the path to freedom but enjoy your ride.

what about dr. joel osteen? do you think he's a good christian? if not what exactly is wrong with him. because he has a huge following. apparently he is a doctor but i don't know what of. just the title "dr." doesn't really mean anything in some cases i don't think. too many people call themselves doctors but their knowledge area is very tiny and i wouldn't put you in that category at all though Dr. Joseph. you're a true PhD.

I don't know about all of them, maybe just the ones who dont pay their loans back and thanks to biden never have to. What do you think Dr. Joseph? Do you think it's fair that the american taxpayer has to pay all these peoples' college loans? But then people who paid off their loans they don't get anything back and people who never went to college, F*** them they still have to pay higher taxes to bail these people out thanks to biden.

in theory, it's nice to have a trusted 3rd party who would co-sign the transactions you wanted to but what happens if they go out of business or just stop answering emails?  

is that really any different than a centralized service that sends you an email and requires you to click on the link to "confirm" your transaction? it's not a bad feature but it can be kind of a pain in the butt. requiring the user to jump through more hoops to get their transaction processed. in fact now that i think about it, clicking on an email link to actively confirm the transaction is more secure than any time delay which expires and lets the transaction proceed without any action by the user...


first release your wallet so people can start using it and trying out these features you are talking about. do they COST anything? i hope not! that's some feedback for you is don't try and charge the users.

here's a definition of "service" for you:

a service is anything that exists outside of the bitcoin core protocol such as "ordinals". i know that's not your definition but that's my definition.


apparently you have found some loopholes and things. good for you. i guess you buy a pack of gum every now and then.

well you can say that NOW but that's not what you said in the previous posting. Take a look:



you were acting like you MIGHT be willing to reverse transactions that went through mixers anyway but you would just be more careful aka "extreme caution". to me, this type of vagueness cannot be good. because it leads to confusion. you say one thing then you say another. you never clarify completely and then that leads to grey areas.


this whole paragraph doesn't even make any sense either. Since it seems to imply that there is some type of cutoff where if the UTXOs haven't been transferred more than a certain amount of times, you would have the ability and willingness to reverse the transaction. Very unfortunate how vague you are. What does "multiple times" mean? Two times? One time? Maybe you don't even know. But based on what you are saying now, you would only be able to reverse UTXOs that had not been transferred at all. So maybe you need to edit this paragraph.




The only scenario where I think high confidence exists is if someone can prove they know the private key to the stolen funds. And those funds have not yet been spent. Then you can reverse those UTXOs only. But once the UTXOs have been consumed, that's where you no longer have any confidence at all. So it would be good if you didn't try and reverse anything except the original unspent UTXOs. That's the only thing that I could even partially accept as part of bitcoin.

I've lost alot of faith in the community approval process based on things that have happened in bitcoin over the last 2 or so years. I'm not so sure there needs to be broad agreement for something to get shoved into bitcoin anymore.

also, why stop with cases of theft? if you can reverse transactions then you can probably do other things too like help people that lost their bitcoin due to losing their private key get their bitcoin back. all they would need to do is prove the bitcoin belonged to them. people like that guy whose bitcoin is stuck on a hard drive in a landfill. if it's ok to do one of them then it should be ok to do other too right?